This speech was presented inThe Public Debate Club In discussing the existence of God
for reference in other speeches presented Sign up for the next meeting

From Eyal - a team leader in a technology company - supports the existence of God:

I want to show that God exists, and for that I want to first define God and then present two arguments - the complexity argument that has no explanation (an argument also called the missing clock argument) and an explanation of the statistical improbability of our existence in the universe.

Definition of God

So let's start by defining what we are actually talking about when we say 'God'. I don't claim to know exactly what God is, and I think we don't have the ability to get a complete picture, but for the purpose of the discussion here, 'God' means an intelligent creator who created the universe and everything in it, including humans and all biological diversity.

I don't want to deal at the moment with the moral and religious questions concerning the nature of God, whether he prefers honoring father and mother or meat and milk.

The missing watchmaker argument

Imagine walking in the desert and seeing strange phenomena. Of course, some of them will seem natural to you - cliffs, hills and maybe even a volcano. But if you come across a wristwatch in the middle of the desert, it will be clear to you that it had to get there from somewhere else and that it did not grow there by itself. The reason for this is two qualities that characterize a creation by an intelligent being that does not exist in nature - complexity and intention.

complexity It means that different parts have joined together in a way that nature could not have joined by itself, and to an extent that it is unlikely that it would join naturally by itself. Intent It means a body that is built for some purpose and was created precisely for that purpose, which of course cannot happen in nature 'by itself'.

The analogy in the watchmaker's argument is the biological creation that exists in the world and for which we have no explanation for its complexity on the one hand, and its suitability for our purposes on the other.

The statistical improbability argument

This argument explains that there is no reason to assume that the earth is adapted to the existence of life, and that the universe is adapted to the existence of the earth in such a clean way. There are a number of physical variables that determine the shape of the universe that seem precisely tuned to our existence. For example, if G, the universal grace constant, were stronger, the earth would collapse into the sun and the sun would collapse into the center of the galaxy, which would become a giant black hole. If G were weaker the Earth would not have formed into a planet but would have remained a belt of asteroids or even a cloud of dust.

In the same way the universe is adjusted too much in terms of the electron charge, the weak nuclear force and many other factors that no statistical chance would have predicted to be perfectly suited to our existence.